Bread and Circuses, the American Version

There’s this blogger who goes by the moniker Southern Punk. Recently, he (she?) wrote a thought-provoking post titled “Why does Rome keep showing up?”. As American power (hard and soft) seems to be on the decline, more and more parallels to the slow decline of Rome are common.

 

He then brings up that famous Roman phrase, “Bread and circuses”.

“Most people think it means entertainment. It doesn't. Not exactly. The bread kept people fed. The circus kept people occupied. The point wasn't the games themselves. The point was attention.”

 

Attention. Nowadays, the US government “seems to communicate through spectacle” only.

“I don't remember a time when everything felt this performative… Sometimes it feels like we're living inside a never-ending competition for screen time.”

He contrasts that with how things used to be. Once upon a time.

“I miss the idea that government was supposed to be boring. Boring meant people were working. Boring meant budgets were being negotiated. Boring meant infrastructure was being built. Boring meant adults were handling problems. Nobody ever tuned in to watch competent governance because competent governance isn't entertaining.”

(I see his point, though I take it with a pinch of salt. All too often, boring was a cover for opaque-ness, everything decided behind closed doors. No explanations, just decisions).

 

In real-time, nobody understands the significance of moments and patterns:

“The Romans didn't sit in the Colosseum saying, "We are witnessing a classic example of bread and circuses." They thought they were watching the games. They bought the food. They cheered. They argued. They went home.”

It’s only hindsight (and historians) which creates “meaning”.

“It was historians who noticed that many of the grandest spectacles appeared during moments of political tension, military setbacks, economic strain, or public dissatisfaction. The people inside the story rarely see the whole story.”

 

Which actions and events of America today are consequential? Signs of what will come next? The likely trajectory of the future?

“The honest answer is that I don't know. Neither do you. That's the uncomfortable part. History rarely explains itself in real time. The understanding comes later. After records are released. After consequences become visible.”

 

Then he makes a key point about history and human nature.

“History rhymes more often than it repeats. But human nature remains remarkably consistent. People are drawn to spectacle. Always have been. We gather around arenas. Stages. Screens. The technology changes. The buildings change. The costumes change. Human nature doesn't change nearly as much as we'd like to believe.”

And:

“Spectacle is one of the oldest political tools humanity ever invented. Different century. Different costumes. Same temptation.”